Janet Jackson's peek-a-boo show during half-time of Super Bowl XXXVIII (she exposed a breast, in case you were living under a rock and didn't hear about it) unleashed a firestorm of criticism from media watchdogs, parents groups, family-friendly programming advocates, and average Joes from around the country who lambasted broadcasters for the deterioration in programming standards. In response, Congress held hearings and called for new penalties for indecency. Spurred by public sentiment and Congress, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) started to crack down on offenders of federal guidelines that prohibit graphic discussions of sexual or excretory activities with costly punitive fines.

Just as broadcasters began to nervously scrutinize and sanitize their programming to avoid provoking further public outcry and the FCC, marketers began to announce changes in plans that seem to reflect a "Puritanization" of marketing communications. For instance, in April, Victoria's Secret parent company Limited Brands decided to pull the plug on the brand's annual televised fashion show featured über-models parading down the runway in their leave-nothing-to-the-imagination skivvies. Even before Jackson's boobgate, fashion retailer Abercrombie & Fitch revealed plans to rethink its marketing strategy that had to date consisted of, among other things, catalogues of basically nude pre-teen models and articles about group sex. Anheuser-Busch also announced that it planned, "a more cautious approach to our creative," and discontinued airing a commercial with a flatulating horse. Likewise, Coors is toning down the sexiness of its "twins" advertising campaign, consisting of various male fantasy scenarios with twin sisters.

Though timed coincidentally with the Jackson scandal, we don't believe the moves by these marketers and others are the direct result of a sudden rise in American prigishness or sudden mood swing towards 1950s-like sensibilities about sex and bodily functions. We see it as positive evidence of the growing accountability of marketing to deliver sales and profits.

After all, Limited would have in all likelihood continued the Victoria's Secret annual fashion show—note the company has continued its provocative ad campaign also staring supermodels dancing, carousing, or just laying about as the case may be in bras and panties—if it produced a significant ROI. The show cost $10 million to produce and advertise, and though it generated publicity and celebrity attention, it did not draw traffic into stores or increase sales. Same can be said for Abercrombie & Fitch's decision to rethink its strategy—what they were doing with their catalogues created a lot of shock value and news attention, but had little to show in the way of sales. Indeed, some customers including ourselves made conscious decisions to eschew the brand because they were pandering to kids.

We also see the moves as a sign of the growing accountability of marketing to build brand equity, what we define as an overall assessment of the "good will" associated with a brand that reflects past marketing performance and predicts future sales and profit potential. Does a gassy horse add to the goodwill associated with the Bud Light brand? Does it enhance the brand message? Do double entendres about twin fantasies add to the goodwill associated with Coors? Are these images building the equity of the brand? As Ron Berger, chief executive and chief creative officer at Euro RSCG MVBMS Partners in New York and newly elected chairman of the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4As), said to his colleagues at the 4As annual conference a few weeks ago, "at the end of the day, the determination ought to be this: are you willing to put your family name, your brand name, on the ad?" We'd add to this thought, can you, with a straight face, go before your board of directors or stockholders to justify how potty jokes, misogyny, or other vulgarity builds brand equity?

While we very much doubt we've seen the end of sex and racy humor in marketing, we do believe marketers will pay closer attention to potential ROI and the ramifications of marketing programs for brand equity in the months ahead.

Most of us have heard of Six Sigma, the ubiquitous methodology for managing an entire company or business unit for the production and delivery of defect-free products and service. Achieving Six Sigma (sigma is the statistical term for standard deviation) means you've delivered a defect-free product or service 99.9997 percent of the time—a near perfect record. Correction costs go down and customer satisfaction goes up, so the logic goes.

But when it comes to advertising, at this point in time, we don't think finding the Six Sigma advertising strategy is necessary. Given that the average ROI of an "above average" campaign by copy testing norms is 0%, finding a campaign that is just two or three standard deviations from the average—in other words an extraordinary campaign—is all it takes to see a dramatic result.

Consider a typical campaign with average targeting, positioning, and copy. An advertiser who purchases 2000 gross rating points (GRPs) for a campaign to launch a new product can usually expect a 48% awareness level. But suppose this advertiser finds a Two Sigma targeting, positioning, and copy. The campaign hits awareness of 48% with 1000 GRPs. Find a Three Sigma strategy and the advertiser hits 48% at 825 GRPs.

At today's prices, 2000 GRPs cost about $25 million. Eight hundred twenty-five GRPs cost about $10 million. The Three Sigma advertising strategy saves approximately $15 million, or 60% of the original investment! A Three Sigma strategy is better than a counterfeit printing press—it mints money.

Back to top.

At the American Association of Advertising Agencies (Four As) annual conference in April, the organization released the results of a Yankelovich Monitor™ study which investigated consumer perceptions of marketing and advertising. It ain't pretty. Here are some of the not-so-great highlights:

• 69% are interested in products and services that would help them skip or block marketing
• 65% think there should be more limits and regulations on marketing and advertising
• 65% feel constantly bombarded with too much marketing and advertising
• 64% are concerned about practices and motives of marketers and advertisers
• 64% are concerned about practices and motives of marketers and advertisers
• 61% feel the amount of marketing and advertising is out of control
• 61% feel that marketers and advertisers don't treat consumers with respect
• 60% have a much more negative opinion of marketing and advertising now than a few years ago
• 59% of consumers feel that most marketing and advertising has very little relevance to them
  

Think of this study as a kind of satisfaction assessment for the practice among the ultimate customers of marketing's "product." When it comes to satisfying our customers' needs for rich, informative, meaningful and timely information when and how they want it, when they need it, marketers are getting a failing grade.

Now, we've been warning companies for years about the inefficiencies of marketing to the masses instead of a specific, homogeneous segment of buyers with entertaining rather than informative advertising. We've decried the lost art of positioning, what we define as the reason you give to consumers to buy one brand and not another, and cautioned against pursuing new, often bizarre mediums (a.k.a., bathroom stalls) to break through clutter without understanding why traditional message delivery channels such as TV aren't working as well as they once did. We focused, however, on the impact of these things on return on investment and marketing performance, not on consumer perceptions of the practice. So even we were taken aback by the negativity of responses to this study.

As we would with any client for whom we're doing customer satisfaction work, we suggest marketers find out what is motivating and desirable about marketing and advertising to consumers in general and specific to a category and industry, and develop strategies, plans, and programs that strictly follow those guidelines before consumer perceptions deteriorate any further.

For more insightful marketing discoveries, visit http://www.copernicusmarketing.com/discover/index.htm

Have a hot discovery for our next release? Contact us at ami.bowen@copernicusmarketing.com

Back to top.

We're very excited about reading this book—the title goes hand-in-hand with our way of thinking about marketing as the engine of business growth. Kumar believes marketing has a larger role in setting the strategic objectives of an organization. He tells marketers how to get marketing in control of "shaping the destiny of the firm." We are very often asked how to get senior management to take marketing seriously, and this book sounds as if it has some specific suggestions (according to the book flap, "seven cross functional and bottom-line oriented initiatives") for how to do just that.

Back to top.

It's going to be a long, hot summer for Coke and Pepsi in the U.S. as the two cola giants prepare to battle for the hearts and minds of soda drinkers with new mid-calories sodas that promise half the sugar, carbs, and calories as Coke and Pepsi. Pepsi originally planned to launch its mid-calorie entry, Pepsi Edge, in August, but when Coke announced C2, its not-quite-diet drink, would hit stores June 16, Pepsi edged (sorry) the launch date up to June 2.

According to Pepsi, roughly 60 million people are dual cola users, regularly switching back and forth between diet and regular cola. That number, the company maintains, has jumped 75% in the past two years. Though Pepsi tried and failed with two other reduced-calorie colas in the 1990s, it believes the explosion of the low-carb diet craze will drive demand. And Coke apparently agrees, citing a growing population of people "who would like less calories but don't want to compromise on taste."

Many industry analysts view Pepsi Edge and C2 with a certain degree of skepticism. "These drinks likely need a reason for being beyond just being 'reduced calorie' versions of existing products, otherwise they will be cannibalistic," explained Bill Pecoriello, a beverage analyst for Morgan Stanley. "However, with a compelling point of difference, they can perhaps create large new categories that drive growth. Some bottlers have an opinion, too. "Mid-cal is too many calories," said one. "If you want half as many calories, then drink half a bottle." Still other industry observers believe the time is right for a mid-calorie entry. John Sicher, editor and publisher of Beverage Digest, for one believes, "there's a whole different consumer awareness now that makes this a timely product."

We'll reserve judgment for when we see the marketing efforts and take our first swig of C2 and Pepsi Edge. If we can beat the rush and grab a bottle of both before they fly off the shelves, we'll offer our review in the June issue of The Copernicus Mzine.

Back to top.